Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttrdc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!ttrdc!mjk
From: mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: An Alternative to the MX
Message-ID: <171@ttrdc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-May-85 12:05:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttrdc.171
Posted: Mon May  6 12:05:43 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 16-May-85 05:06:58 EDT
References: <728@rayssd.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Teletype Corp., Skokie, IL
Lines: 21

>From: sth@rayssd.UUCP
>     I propose that the missiles be put in a movable platform in Lake Superior.
>1000 feet of water is an excellent radiation shield, and would be alot easier
>to manoeuver in (:-)).  The lake covers a massive area, and it should be very
>difficult to track anything underwater.  

This points out precisely why we don't need the MX; we already have lots of
missiles underwater.  They're on our submarines, and they provide an 
excellent deterrent to any first strike ideas the Soviets might have.  The
submarine commanders have significant autonomy if they can't contact their
home bases (e.g. after a first strike), and could hang out underwater for
weeks, lobbing missiles at the USSR every day or so.  As a lecturer of mine
once said, the Soviets
could expect to lose their fifty largest cities after executing a 100%
successful strike against all land- and air-based forces.  In other words,
if not a single missile leaves a land-based silo, and every bomber is
destroyed on the ground, the submarines still can take out the fifty largest
Soviet cities.  Now *whose* window of vulnerability were we talking about?

Mike Kelly